Bell Hotel injunction heightens pressure as asylum hotel numbers reach 32,059 across 122 councils

New Home Office figures up to June 2025 show 32,059 asylum seekers in hotel accommodation across 122 local authorities, with demand highly concentrated in a small number of areas as the Bell Hotel injunction reshapes how councils can place residents and policymakers weigh longer-term housing options.

New data released today offers a granular picture of where the UK’s asylum hotel system stands, and how the landscape is shifting under political and legal pressure. By the end of June 2025, 32,059 asylum seekers were living in hotel accommodation across 122 local authority areas, according to Home Office figures published alongside quarterly immigration statistics. The national total sits at roughly eight per cent higher than a year earlier, but the distribution remains highly uneven: Hillingdon in west London reported the largest hotel population at 2,238 residents, followed by Hounslow with 1,536 and Manchester outside the capital with 1,158. In the majority of councils there were zero residents in hotels, underscoring the concentrated demand in a relatively small number of areas. The release also comes amid a high-profile legal dispute over the Bell Hotel in Epping, Essex, where a High Court injunction blocks asylum seekers from being housed there from next month, a ruling seen as potentially shaping how councils address hotel placements elsewhere.

The political reverberations of the data have been immediate. The ongoing hotel placement debate sits against a backdrop of record asylum activity and a volatile local-politics environment. Official figures show the year to June 2025 produced around 111,000 asylum applications, a record level that has intensified scrutiny of who is housed where and for how long. National opposition and some Conservative-leaning councils have called for tighter controls on hotel use, while arguments have grown louder about coordinating a broader shift toward longer‑term housing solutions. Protests outside the Bell Hotel and other sites have punctuated the controversy, reflecting deep-seated concerns in communities about safety, planning, and the disruption associated with contingency accommodation.

The costs and policy trade-offs of moving away from hotels remain central to the debate. The National Audit Office has warned that substituting large-site accommodation for hotels is likely to be more expensive overall, with the NAO estimating the large-sites programme could cost around £1.2 billion, even as it housing fewer people than originally planned. By March 2024, four large sites were in development, and around 900 residents were being housed at these sites across two open facilities; multiple reviews have highlighted delivery and value-for-money challenges in ramping up a new model. Taken with the hotel-data today, the figures underscore the complexity of achieving a sustained shift away from contingency hotels while managing costs, logistics, and public sentiment as ministers pursue a plan to reduce hotel reliance in favour of longer-term housing options.

📌 Reference Map:

Source Panel
– Express (lead data and Bell Hotel injunction context)
– The Guardian (context on hotel data and asylum figures)
– Reuters (end-June 2025 hotel figures; year-to-June asylum applications)
– ITV News (Bell Hotel injunction context and broader site-cost discussion)
– Sky News (national reaction and council/legal-action dynamics)
– National Audit Office (NAO) (alternative asylum accommodation will cost more than hotels)
– GOV.UK Immigration System Statistics (context on asylum-system housing and applications)

Source: Noah Wire Services

Noah Fact Check Pro

The draft above was created using the information available at the time the story first
emerged. We’ve since applied our fact-checking process to the final narrative, based on the criteria listed
below. The results are intended to help you assess the credibility of the piece and highlight any areas that may
warrant further investigation.

Freshness check

Score:
8

Notes:
✅ Fresh data: The headline figures (32,059 people in hotels at end-June 2025; ~8% year-on-year rise; 111,000 asylum applications year to June 2025) match contemporaneous government statistics and multiple national outlets publishing on 21–22 August 2025 (Reuters, The Guardian, ITV, Sky). 🕰️ Earliest matching publications found on 21 August 2025. ⚠️ Reuse: the narrative draws directly on Home Office quarterly immigration statistics and NAO reporting; this is expected and indicates the piece is reporting newly released official data rather than breaking exclusive reporting. ‼️ If similar wording appears on lower-quality/aggregator pages, those are republications of the same official release rather than independent scoops.

Quotes check

Score:
9

Notes:
✅ No unique attributable direct quotes in the provided text that are not already widely reported. Identifiable attributed language (for example NAO commentary about costs) mirrors wording in the NAO press release and will therefore appear verbatim in multiple outlets. 🕵️ Searches show identical or highly similar quotations in the NAO press release (NAO spokesman/Gareth Davies) and in contemporaneous reports — indicating reuse of official quotes rather than exclusive interviewing. ⚠️ If an outlet claims an exclusive quotation not found elsewhere, that would be suspicious; not the case here.

Source reliability

Score:
8

Notes:
✅ Strong provenance: the narrative relies on official Home Office statistics and the National Audit Office report, and is echoed by major broadcasters and wire agencies (Reuters, Sky, ITV, AP, The Guardian). ✅ These institutions are verifiable and authoritative for the data presented. ⚠️ The lead publication (Express) is a mainstream tabloid with variable editorial standards; however, the specific factual claims identified are directly traceable to Home Office/NAO material and major newswires, reducing the risk of fabrication. ⚠️ Where smaller or partisan outlets republish the same material, treat those republications as secondary.

Plausability check

Score:
8

Notes:
✅ Plausible and corroborated: time‑sensitive claims (hotel totals, council counts, injunction at the Bell Hotel, NAO cost estimate ~£1.2bn and ~900 people at large sites by early 2024) are verifiable in contemporaneous reporting and the NAO press release. ⚠️ Concentration figures by council (Hillingdon 2,238; Hounslow 1,536; Manchester 1,158) align with the granular Home Office dataset reported by multiple outlets, but should be checked against the raw Home Office statistical tables for any downstream transcription errors. ❗ Tone & framing: some paragraphs include political commentary and references to protests and local reaction — these are widely reported but editorial framing may vary by outlet; check direct statements where quoted. ⚠️ If the narrative mixes older background (NAO March 2024 figures) with the new June 2025 hotel data without making the chronology explicit, readers might misinterpret the timeline; the piece largely keeps dates but editors should ensure date anchors are clear.

Overall assessment

Verdict (FAIL, OPEN, PASS): PASS

Confidence (LOW, MEDIUM, HIGH): HIGH

Summary:
✅ The report largely passes factual checks: the core numerical claims (32,059 people in hotels end-June 2025; ~8% rise year‑on‑year; record ~111,000 asylum applications year to June 2025) and the High Court injunction affecting The Bell Hotel in Epping are corroborated by multiple reputable outlets and official documents published 21–22 August 2025. 🕰️ The narrative is not covertly new — it is reporting official releases and widely reprinted material, which explains identical quotes and figures across outlets. ⚠️ Major risks: recycled official wording/quotes (expected) and potential small transcription discrepancies when granular council counts are copied — editors should cross-check the Home Office statistical tables for the exact council-level numbers. ‼️ Overall credibility is high given corroboration from the Home Office, NAO, Reuters, Sky, ITV and other established outlets, but editorial caution is warranted around chronology and any novel or exclusive assertions not supported by those official documents.